In October Write About the Supreme Court

Real newspaper editors, as distinct from lowlife bloggers, seem to subscribe to some kind of reminder service that tells them to write about certain things at certain times. Lowlife bloggers have to keep such information in their heads because lowlife bloggers can’t afford to pay for the fancy reminder services that real newspaper editors receive routinely.

The reminder service email that must recently have been sent to all the real editors must have said “in October write about the Supreme Court.” Nine people come back from a long vacation — one that makes even the Congress jealous — and it’s big news. The same thing happens in late June when the Justices decide all of the cases they never wanted to decide and really never even wanted to consider before they begin their three-month vacations.

Today, a decision on gay marriage dominated the news, but that is only because real newspaper editors are constrained by covering real news while lowlife bloggers are given much more latitude.

Since I can’t afford to pay for the email alerts telling me to cover exactly what everybody else is covering, I have to rely on dreams to decide what to write. Here are the two Supreme Court cases I dreamt about.

Barack Hussein Obama v. Hillary Rodham Clinton: this is popularly referred to as the “don’t do stupid shit” case. Recall that the President suggested that this was his guiding principle while Mrs. Clinton suggested that it was insufficiently uplifting. In a 9-0 decision, the Justices declared that the government of the United States is now precluded from doing stupid shit.

The decision itself is longer than Dodd Frank and its related regulations because it includes a litany of all of the stupid shit that has been done in the past but can no longer be done in the future. Highlights include building complicated websites and rebuilding foreign countries, neither of which ever goes very well.

Every law and program listed in the decision is now null and void as if the populace had wasted neither time nor money thinking about it.

Mrs. McGillicutty’s Seventh Grade Class v. The President of the United States, the United States Senate, the House of Representatives and All the Dingbats Who Have Ever Written a Law or Regulation: this is popularly referred to as the “it’s not what you say it’s how you say it” case.

It seems that Mrs. McGillicutty taught seventh grade civics until she began to feel unclean and threw up her hands in disgust. At about that time, she read an article noting that political speeches were written for a seventh grade comprehension level, which Mrs. McGillicutty well knew was the equivalent of fifth graders back in her day.

“If the speeches that get these bozos elected can be written for seventh graders, surely all laws and regulations can also be written so that seventh graders can understand them,” thought she. The Court, again by a margin of 9-0, agreed holding that ignorance of the law is now a complete defense if the law is incomprehensible to the people against whom it is designed to be enforced.

The stock market soared on the news of both decisions, especially the demise of the Internal Revenue Code. Lobbyists, lawyers and accountants flung themselves from high places in large number. The excess money in politics issue was also immediately resolved.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *